Introduction 
The case of Communist Party of Nepal v. Election Commission (NKP 2051, Decision No. 4950) started from a writ petition filed before the Supreme Court of Nepal challenging the refusal of the Election Commission to register a political party and assign it a reserved election symbol. The case touched upon foundational questions concerning the nature of multi-party democracy, freedom of association, electoral recognition, and the relationship between general constitutional guarantees and specific procedural conditions imposed for party recognition.
The petitioner, acting on behalf of the Communist Party of Nepal (established originally on 15 September 1949 under the leadership of Pushpa Lal Shrestha and claimed to have been revived on 2048/07/16), contended that the Election Commission's rejection of his application violated his constitutionally guaranteed rights. 
To address the legal and constitutional issues raised, a Special Bench comprising Hon’ble Judges Trilok Pratap Rana, Om Bhakta Shrestha, Keshav Prasad Upadhyay, Govind Bahadur Shrestha, and Uday Raj Upadhyay was constituted. 

Facts 
The Communist Party of Nepal was originally established in 1949. Many years later, on 2048/07/16, the petitioner and a group of representative workers claimed to have revived the party with the intention of restoring its organizational dynamism. Following this revival, and intending to participate in both parliamentary and local elections, the petitioner submitted an application on 2048/11/15 to the Election Commission requesting registration of the Communist Party of Nepal under Article 113 of the Constitution. Along with the request for registration, the petitioner also sought recognition for the party and the allocation of traditional communist election symbols such as the hammer-and-sickle, a star, or a paddy field symbol. The Election Commission, however, declined to process the application, stating that the elections to the House of Representatives had already been completed and that it was not in a position to proceed with party registration at that stage. The Commission also referred to Article 113(2)(d) of the Constitution, which requires political parties to secure at least three percent of the total valid votes cast in the House of Representatives election in order to qualify for recognition.

Petitioner’s Claim
The petitioner argued that he possessed both a natural and constitutional right to establish, revive, and operate a political party. He invoked Article 12 of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal, 2047, which guarantees the freedom to form associations and organizations, and emphasized that the Constitution enshrines a multi-party democratic system, people’s sovereignty, universal adult suffrage, periodic elections, and an accountable parliamentary government as elements of its basic structure. These, he claimed, are protected under Article 116, which prevents arbitrary restrictions on such fundamental principles.

The petitioner maintained that the essential purpose of forming a political party is to participate in elections, present political programs to the public, gain public confidence, and ultimately secure a governing mandate. Since Nepal’s democratic process is heavily symbol-driven, he argued that election symbols play a crucial role in allowing voters to identify political organizations. Denying a party a reserved election symbol, therefore, prevents it from seeking political support on an equal footing with other parties.
He further contended that the Constitution distinguishes between substantive and procedural provisions. According to him, Article 112 which governs political parties generally is a substantive provision that guarantees political parties the right to register with the Election Commission.  In contrast, Article 113, which concerns recognition for elections, merely outlines procedural conditions. He argued that procedural rules cannot override the fundamental right to political participation. The petitioner also insisted that the three-percent threshold under Article 113(2)(d) cannot logically be applied to newly formed or revived political parties that have not yet had the opportunity to contest elections. On these grounds, the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to quash the Election Commission’s decision by issuing a writ of certiorari and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to register the Communist Party of Nepal and grant it an appropriate election symbol.

Respondent’s Response 
In its written reply, the Election Commission asserted that the petitioner had not fulfilled the constitutionally mandated requirements for party recognition under Article 113(2)(d). Since the party had not secured at least three percent of the valid votes cast in the previous House of Representatives election, the Commission held that it was not legally authorized to recognize or register the party for electoral purposes.
The Commission also emphasized that the elections for local bodies had already concluded, and therefore, issuing a judicial order at this stage would be futile. Courts, they argued, do not issue writs that cannot produce effective results. Furthermore, the Commission clarified that unrecognized parties or political organizations are not barred from participating in elections. They may still field candidates, but such candidates must use symbols designated for independent candidates. Reserved election symbols are granted exclusively to parties that meet the constitutional requirements under Article 113. The Attorney General, representing the state, supported the Commission’s interpretation and stressed that the Commission is strictly bound by constitutional provisions and cannot act beyond the authority conferred upon it by law.

Legal Provisions 
Several constitutional (Constitution of Kingdom of Nepal, 2047) and statutory provisions were central to the dispute.
•    Article 12 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to form associations and organizations, subject only to reasonable restrictions. 
•    Article 112 deals with the general provisions related to political organizations and political parties, and Article 112(1) indicates that political parties may be formed and may function in accordance with the Constitution. 
•    Article 113 outlines the procedures and conditions for the recognition and registration of political parties for the purpose of elections. Article 113(1) requires political parties to register their names with the Election Commission for election recognition, whereas Article 113(2)(d) mandates that any political party seeking recognition must have received at least three percent of the total valid votes cast in the previous election to the House of Representatives. 
•    Article 104 describes the powers, duties, and functions of the Election Commission. 
•    Article 116 establishes that the basic structure of the Constitution including multi-party democracy cannot be amended in a manner that curtails its core principles. The petitioner also invoked Article 88(2), which empowers the Supreme Court to issue orders, including writs, for enforcing legal rights.
Statutorily, Section 16 of the House of Representatives Election Act, 2047, and Section 27(2) and (3) of the Local Bodies (Election Procedures) Act, 2048, were in question. The petitioner challenged Section 27(2) and (3) as unconstitutional to the extent that they denied party election symbols to parties that had not met the three-percent threshold, arguing that these provisions conflicted with Articles 1, 112, and 113 of the Constitution.

Procedural History
Following the Election Commission’s refusal to register the Communist Party of Nepal and assign it an election symbol, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court seeking judicial review. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the Commission’s letter dated 2048/12/13 and a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to register the party and allocate it a symbol. Because the matter involved constitutional interpretation and affected the nature of political participation, the case was heard before a five-judge Special Bench of the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety. The Court held that the Election Commission did not act unlawfully or unconstitutionally when it refused to register the petitioner’s party. According to the Court, Article 113(2)(d) establishes a mandatory requirement for political party recognition, and political parties that fail to secure at least three percent of the valid votes cast in the House of Representatives election cannot be registered as recognized political parties for election purposes. The Court agreed with the Election Commission that the petitioner’s party was not entitled to a reserved election symbol as it had not met the constitutional criteria.

The Court further observed that the Constitution does not prohibit unrecognized political organizations from participating in elections; such political entities may contest using symbols designated for independent candidates. The Court found no merit in the argument that the three-percent threshold should not apply to newly formed or revived parties, stating that the constitutional provisions were explicit and allowed no exceptions. Additionally, the Court accepted the Election Commission’s argument that issuing a writ would be futile, as the elections relevant to the petition had already concluded. The Court therefore declined to issue any mandamus directing the registration of the petitioner’s party.

Conclusion
The Court emphasized that Nepal’s constitutional framework sets strict conditions for political party recognition, particularly through Article 113. It rejected the petitioner’s argument that Article 112 created a broad, overriding right to party registration independent of electoral requirements. Instead, the Court held that Article 113 is not merely procedural but establishes substantive thresholds that must be met before a party can be recognized for electoral purposes. The dispute centered on balancing the freedom of association guaranteed under Article 12 with the structured regulation of political participation. While individuals are free to form political organizations, the Court clarified that this freedom does not automatically entitle a party to receive a reserved election symbol, as recognition for electoral participation is subject to constitutional conditions designed to ensure fairness and representativeness.
The Court further dismissed the petitioner’s reliance on the basic structure doctrine under Article 116, reasoning that the multi-party democratic system remains fully preserved even when certain parties fail to achieve electoral recognition. Both recognized and unrecognized parties can still contest elections, though only the former receive reserved symbols—a distinction that the Court viewed as a deliberate constitutional mechanism for ensuring accountability. The Court also accepted the doctrine of futility since the elections in question had already concluded, meaning a judicial order could not provide meaningful relief. Ultimately, the Court upheld the Election Commission’s application of Article 113(2)(d) and affirmed the constitutionality of the statutory provisions challenged, concluding that electoral recognition is a privilege that must be earned through demonstrated public support, not merely through claims of historical lineage or organizational revival.